Dissecting the co-evolution of Black Holes and galaxies

1. Dissecting the co-evolution of Black Holes and galaxies via basic accretion and clustering models and the size distribution of early-type galaxies Francesco Shankar with: D. Weinberg, M. Bernardi, F. Marulli, J. Moreno, Y. Shen, R. Sheth, S. Bonoli, J. Miralda-Escude’, L. Ferrarese, M. Crocce, Z. Haiman, C. Li, G. Kauffmann, S. White FERRARA AGN9 26/05/10

2. SAMs are working hard to understand what is going on… Malbon et al. Lapi, FS, et al. ``our knowledge on the physics of accretion onto BHs and their interaction with galaxies is still poor to draw firm conclusions’’ Fontanot et al.

3. A model-independent approach: The Continuity Equation Important historical references : Cavaliere et al. (1971); Soltan (1982); Small & Blandford (1992); Salucci et al. (1999)

4. Redshift-dependent P(L/LEdd,z) distributions?

5. Mass-dependent P(L/LEdd,MBH,z) and radiative efficiency? <L/Ledd > ~ MBH^(-a)

6. Large Scale Clustering of BHs n n Mhalo Mbh FS, D. Weinberg, J. Miralda-Escude’ 2010

7. Seeding Central and Satellite Halos with BHs N(Mh) n n Mh Mhalo Mbh Pc(Mbh) Nc[Mh(Mbh)]/Ntot+ Ps(Mbh) Ns[Mh(Mbh)]/Ntot=U(Mbh,z) Q=Ps/Pc~0.3-1 Mmin FS, D. Weinberg, J. Miralda-Escude’ 2010

9. The median size decreases and σ increases at high-z, at FIXED Stellar Mass FS & Bernardi 2009 FS, Marulli, Bernardi, Sheth et al. 2010b

10. Gaskell 2009 FS et al. in preparation

11. A “Cumulative” Test FS, Bernardi, Haiman 2009

12. SO…WHAT DID WE LEARN ABOUTHOW BHs EVOLVE? • ACCRETION: possible redshift and mass dependence in P(λ), and mass dependence in ε. • QUASAR CLUSTERING: scatter L-dep. (?), small-scales-> significant fraction of satellites increasing with time (?); Negative Evolution in Mbh-σ!!! • STRONG SIZE EVOLUTION: implies negative evolution but… Data->Positive Evolution in the Mbh-σ

13. A basic model for QSOs

14. The luminosity function

15. Quasar clustering

16. Scaling Relations: an evolving Mbh-MSTAR relation?

17. Two-phase Galaxy Evolution: 1-High-z wet phase; 2-low-z Dry Accretion (?) FS, Marulli, Bernardi, Sheth et al. 2010a

18. CONCLUSIONS: -Strong Size, Sersic index Evolution, milder Velocity Dispersion Evolution ?!? (More Data) -Minor Mergers good candidates: keep also central density! However: enough? All galaxies on the same size-mass relation? Downsizing? -Implications: Evolution in the Mbh-Mbulge relation by a factor ~2 But : role of S0 galaxies? Role of Disk-Instability? -Other additional constraints from Ф(Re,z) ; Ф(σ,z); FP(z)

19. Observational Evidence: -Number/mass density strong decrease -Gas fraction increase -Sizes decrease

20. What drives Late Size Evolution and… by How Much?

21. Not only Sizes: Velocity Dispersion and Sersic Index

22. Comparing with different type of data….

23. More detailed comparison models-observations: a “Cosmological Model”

24. If velocity dispersions and stellar masses evolve…. What Happens to the SMBH-Galaxy Scaling Relations??

25. Other interesting empirical results on The Evolution of Scaling Relations: Gaskell 2009 Jahnke et al. 2009

26. A “Cumulative” Test FS, Bernardi, Haiman 2009

27. A basic model for QSOs

28. The luminosity function

29. Quasar clustering

30. Scaling Relations: an evolving Mbh-MSTAR relation?

31. ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINTS FROM THE SIZEDISTRIBUTION OF SDSS GALAXIES: FS, Marulli, Bernardi, Boylan-Kolchin, Sheth et al. 2009a,b FS & Bernardi 2009

32. CONCLUSIONS: -Strong Size, Sersic index Evolution, milder Velocity Dispersion Evolution ?!? (More Data) -Minor Mergers good candidates: keep also central density! However: enough? All galaxies on the same size-mass relation? Downsizing? Mancini et al. 2009

33. CONCLUSIONS: -Strong Size, Sersic index Evolution, milder Velocity Dispersion Evolution ?!? (More Data) -Minor Mergers good candidates: keep also central density! However: enough? All galaxies on the same size-mass relation? Downsizing? -Implications: Evolution in the Mbh-Mbulge relation by a factor ~2 But : role of S0 galaxies? Role of Disk-Instability? -Other additional constraints from Ф(Re,z) ; Ф(σ,z); FP(z)

34. A closer look to low galaxy profiles….

35. DELAY Triggering epoch Shining epoch

36. PASSIVE BIAS : A SIGNATURE OF RAPID BH GROWTH AND MASSIVE ‘’SEEDs’’ A long delay ‘’lowers’’ the bias at the shining R. Angulo, M. Crocce

37. Quasar clustering

38. Second Ingredient: BH Light Curve Mass-dependent Light Curve: more Extended for less Massive BHs Feedback-Constrained Lpeak:

39. The Clustering of “MERGING” Halos 1e12 2e13 S. Bonoli, FS, S. White, et al.

40. The luminosity function

41. What is producing faint AGNs? More massive halos in minor events or less Massive halos in Major events? We converted to bias estimates the L-dependent cross-correlations of AGNs in SDSS by Cheng Li

42. An evolving Mbh-σ relation?

43. The sizes decrease and σ increase at high-z at FIXED Stellar Mass FS & Bernardi 2009 FS, Marulli, Bernardi, Sheth et al. 2009a,b

44. High Clustering: Less Massive BHs in the Local Universe!

45. Continuity Equation : to reduce number density of low-mass BHs continuosly decrease the Eddington Ratio in time! FS, D. Weinberg, J. Miralda-Escude’ 2009 FS 2009

46. A non-evolving Mbh-σ relation!

47. CONCLUSIONS Starting From a Basic Model for the Triggering and Shining of QSOs we find: 1-Mass-dependent Light Curves favored 2-High clustering of z>3 QSOs : implies rapid growth/massive BH seeds; NO excess ‘’merger bias’’ 3-High Clustering of AGNs in SDSS: implies flat BH mass function at the low-mass end 4-Scaling Relations : at high-z same Mbh-σ, but smaller sizes and higher σ for given stellar mass favors higher Mbh-Mstar!

48. The Clustering of “MERGING” Halos We select the halos from the MS which have recently merged Merger Rate enough to host all QSOs S. Bonoli, FS, S. White, et al. 2009

49. First Ingredient: Merger/Virialization Rates of Halos Fakhouri&Ma rates fits to the MS F&M rates consistent with accurate theoretical estimates! J. Moreno

50. Duty cycle~1 Another Application: The SDSS z>3 Quasar Clustering n(Mbh=L/)~Ф(L)/P0 FS, M. Crocce, J. Miralda-Escude’, P. Fosalba, D. Weinberg 2008